S.C. should keep its nose out of the birthright citizenship case, which is a political matter
- Thread starter johnwk
- Start date
Meathead
Diamond Member
I guess you can in fact blame anyone for anything no matter how ludicrous, for whatever that may be worth.
- Thread starter
- #23
jacksonlamb
Platinum Member
- Feb 3, 2026
- 2,720
- 1,477
- 893
- Thread starter
- #25
The S.C. disagrees with you! You ignore the qualifier "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) the Court states the following regarding the 14th Amendment:
“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“.
And in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) the Court affirms the Court’s opinion in the Slaughter-House cases:
”Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . . must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country”
'”This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof .' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance”
- Thread starter
- #26
The problem is, we have FIFTH COLUMN activists and Yellow Journalists who have been brainwashing the American people for generations.
JWK
“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - Joseph Story
jacksonlamb
Platinum Member
- Feb 3, 2026
- 2,720
- 1,477
- 893
No, the SC agrees with me and not you. This is a done deal, johnwk, and no amount of denying will change that.
jacksonlamb
Platinum Member
- Feb 3, 2026
- 2,720
- 1,477
- 893
Crying "oh, woe is poor me," is not going to stop SCOTUS from ruling against you.
- Thread starter
- #29
You suspiciously forgot to post your "historical evidence" confirming the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, born on American soil, are intended to be granted the preciously privilege of United States citizenship by the legislative intent of the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment.
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934) Justice SUTHERLAND, J., dissenting.
Meathead
Diamond Member
Seems to have worked for "civil rights".
- Thread starter
- #31
And if the S.C. grants U.S. citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, they will have created a new category of U.S. citizenship without the people's consent, nor the approval of their elected representatives. And this is the very definition of tyranny as express by Madison:
”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47
JWK
jacksonlamb
Platinum Member
- Feb 3, 2026
- 2,720
- 1,477
- 893
It has been posted time and again, so, no, I won't litigate it with you again.
You have a hard time accepting the fact that this will be over in June, much to your unhappiness.
jacksonlamb
Platinum Member
- Feb 3, 2026
- 2,720
- 1,477
- 893
A very poor fallacy of false equivalency.
- Thread starter
- #34
Your are certainly correct about the method used to grant U.S. citizenship to a new category (the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals) . . . the majority on the court will be applying the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to accomplish that goal . . .
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”
The fact is, those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records _ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text _ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
- Thread starter
- #35
Today's Democrat Party Leadership is infested with Authoritarian Revolutionaries, the same kind that took over Cuba, stole people’s property, and now rule over the people with an iron fist and barrel of a gun!
- Thread starter
- #36
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
I, of course, have no problem supplying my documented evidence.
On May 30th, of the 14th Amendment debates Senator Trumbull states:
“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means….“It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” … It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens." see: Cong. Globe 39th Congress, page 2893, 1st and 2nd columns
Mr. JOHNSON then rises to say: “…there is no definition in the Constitution as it now stands as to citizenship. Who is a citizen of the United States is an open question….there is no definition as to how citizenship can exist in the United States except through the medium of a citizenship in a State… “Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power–for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us–shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”
…he then continues “…the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”.”___ Cong. Globe. Page 2893 2nd dolumn, halfway down
Mr. HOWARD later follows up with regard to the meaning of “jurisdiction” by saying: “I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” SEE: Cong.Globe, 39th Congress, page 2895, middle column
And in IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) with regard to the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” the SCOTUS emphatically states:
“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
And then in 1884, the Supreme Court once again echoes the intentions for which “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was written into the 14th Amendment:
'This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States,but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”_ Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 101 (1884)
And how may an alien who has entered the United States nullify their allegiance to their home country and submit themselves to the complete jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, so a child born to such a person becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth?
By taking the following Oath Of Allegiance as prescribed under our law.
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God”
By this oath an alien becomes “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and a baby born to such an individual while on American soil would then be a citizen of the US because its mother owes her allegiance to the United States, is subject to our political jurisdiction, e.g., may vote, may be required to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States, etc., and is therefore subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment!
jacksonlamb
Platinum Member
- Feb 3, 2026
- 2,720
- 1,477
- 893
The anchor babies' claim and reasoning has been posted here and everywhere people talk about it.
It will so easily prevail, johnwk. All the yelling will not change a thin.
It will so easily prevail, johnwk. All the yelling will not change a thin.
- Thread starter
- #38
Yup. We know all about your love affair and embracing anchor babies:
American citizens are being made into taxed slaves to support the needs of illegal entrants and their offspring.
jacksonlamb
Platinum Member
- Feb 3, 2026
- 2,720
- 1,477
- 893
From the beginning of the Euro-American era, we have been a country founded, in part, by immigrants.
Our triumphs since then have been in part caused by immigrants.
Your nativism unfounded and unbased on merit remains goofy.
jacksonlamb
Platinum Member
- Feb 3, 2026
- 2,720
- 1,477
- 893
This right has already been granted to anchor babies. It does not require our "agreement", johnwk.
Similar threads
